Follow by Email

Wednesday, 29 October 2014

Was Michael Zehaf-Bibeau a terrorist? Yes (but you don’t get to decide)

The attacks in Ottawa on October 22, 2014, by Muslim-convert
Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, in which he killed an unarmed honour guard at the War
Memorial and then stormed parliament, have been called “terrorist” by the RCMP,
the government and, depending on weather conditions, Liberal Leader Justin
Trudeau.

Thomas Mulcair: soft on "terror"? (Source: CBC)

However. Tom Mulcair, leader of the official oppositions,
has stated categorically that “When we look at the individual...we are not in
the presence of a terrorist act in the sense that we understand it.”

In Mulcair’s
view, Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau, who suffered from mental illness and drug addiction,
and repeatedly sought help, had committed an uncommon and horrific crime, but
not a terrorist act.

In order for an attack like the one in Ottawa to be
considered terrorist, it must comply with a pre-established set of criteria. This is much
like the set-lists commonly used to assess conditions such as alcoholism or Asperger’s syndrome.

However, in the case of terrorists, six advance criteria
are crucial for observers to take into account. The debate goes nowhere unless
we accept this ground game, as unfair as it may seem.

1. Alleged terrorist
aren’t allowed to take the test. Only others can. And others may come to different
conclusions when faced with the same questions. And ultimately, the public is
just playing Boggle: only governments get to score this.

2. The terrorist
argument is not allowed to have a relativist component. We can’t say a person is not a terrorist because
we do the same or worse. This is crucial: the doctor offering the prescription
cannot himself be considered sick. So, it is epistemologically impossible for
the government of Canada to commit a terrorist act. That’s just the way it is.

3. History and numbers
don’t matter. They just don’t. Centuries of Western colonialism, recent
interventions in the Middle East, the role of Israel...None of it matters. Two
dead soldiers on Canadian soil after over a decade of military involvement
overseas are the defining factors, period.

4. Criteria can be
culturally adjusted. Usually there is a religious and/or race-based skew. The
Koran, an intolerant text (sorry, it is), has some good bits, and the vast majority
of Muslims in Canada are law abiding. The Old Testament, another intolerant text (sorry, I know
that’s hard, too), also has some good bits, but of course the vast majority of Jewish
Canadians are law abiding. The New Testament, also an intolerant text (more apologies,
but the “Jesus is Love” thing doesn’t stand up: we are to follow Him or be
damned for all eternity), has informed the morals of millions of law abiding
Canadians. In all instances, believers in the latter two religious texts who commit
acts of violence as part of a coherent agenda, and to advance their narrow interests,
will be less inclined to be considered terrorist than their Muslim equivalent.
Volumes could be written on this bias, but there it is.

5: Geopolitics matter.
If there is a brutal Islamic insurgency in another part of the world, with
nasty threats being made against the West, and foreigners beheaded, then any Muslim
who professes sympathy for the cause is shit out of luck.

6. Fear always wins.
Once an act is deemed terrorist, the government gets to do more or less what to
wants. Cool.

That said, now that the RCMP has said that the events in
Ottawa were a terrorist act, we offer up the following assessment.

+ Did Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau belong to, or show sympathy with,
what the government considers a terrorist organization or ideology? Sort of. He
didn’t belong to an organization. However, he was a Muslim, and made a video
(which, surprise, we aren’t allowed to see), claiming sympathy for persecuted Muslims,
and a desire to attack Canada's military.

+ Was his act intended to terrorize? Yes. Some have said
that because he shot a soldier it could be considered a legitimate act of war,
but that soldier was unarmed, and Zehaf-Bibeau made his way to parliament to
kill civilian politicians. Of course, in acts of warfare an enemy’s political
leadership is usually considered fair game, and civilian casualties are an
accepted by-product, but not in this case, because we write the rules (see
point #2).

+ Did he repent? Uncertain. He went down fighting, so we
guess not. However, there is some question as to whether Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau could
have been helped in advance, should people have been paying attention. But
after-the-fact assessments have little merit. The deed is done.

+ Was the act premeditated? Yes. Despite his history of mental
illness, Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau was cogent enough to make a video where he allegedly
said that his actions were “in the name of Allah in response to Canadian
foreign policy.” Remember: killing on behalf of Allah makes you a terrorist,
but if you serve the devil you are simply a schizophrenic. Serious advances
could perhaps be made if we accepted that anyone acting on behalf of gods,
spirits, or devils, is mentally ill, and mentally ill people can’t be
terrorists – but we aren’t there yet.

+ Did he consider himself a terrorist? No, but it doesn’t
matter (see point #1). The RCMP says that in his video Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau
threatened the military and discussed Canadian foreign policy. So, that could
make him a soldier of sorts. But remember: he can’t score himself. This
question might be meaningful to some people, but not to the government.

So, on balance it looks like Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau was a
terrorist.

A cover of the novel 1984

Cue changes to security laws and less oversight of the RCMP/CSIS, The Conservatives are on track to increase police powers for surveillance, detention, arrest, and evidence collection, If they do this at ministerial discretion, without judicial oversight, then it will be dark days indeed. This will be above and beyond the recently-passed Bill C-44, which now allows Canada's intelligence community to act in an extra-judicial manner overseas. Bill C-44 is great news for Canadian business, which is already closely tied-in with our foreign investment and trade offices abroad.

Sadly, we may be becoming our own worst enemy. More Canadian
soldiers have committed suicide from 2004 to 2014 (160) than have been killed in
combat from 2002 to 2014 (138). Compared to military deaths due to domestic
terror attacks, that comes to 298/2. But
it is terror, so we are to prepare for what “might” happen, while staying
engaged militarily overseas in an part of the world that has been controlled by
western colonial powers (or the dictators who did their bidding) for hundreds
of years.

But this time it’s different. Now its liberation. And they
are the terrorists. So, we can expect more of this stuff, and more of the same
response. It is reminiscent of Orwell’s novel 1984, where permanent war with
limited real domestic impact has great leverage politically (see point #6).

Should Canadians take Mulcair’s view, there could be real
movement, but we can expect him to be demonized as naive, and soft on
terrorism. That in turn will lead to more political posturing on the part of
Prime Minister Harper, wallowing from Justin Trudeau and, perhaps, another
Conservative victory in the 2015 general election.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search This Blog

Podcast: Notes From The Underground

In the podcast Notes From The Underground TE Wilson discusses historical and contemporary attitudes toward crime. Each episode features a one-on-one interview that explores a unique topic. Interviewees include authors, experts, and individuals with personal experiences of crime. These podcasts were originally broadcast through the facilities of Trent Radio in Peterborough, Canada.

Mezcalero, a Detective Sánchez novel

Bicultural and transgender, detective Ernesto Sánchez seeks a missing Canadian woman on Mexico’s Pacific coast. Moving uneasily in a world where benign tourism co-exists with extreme violence, he becomes a pawn in a shadowy power-play between corrupt police and drug cartels. Forced to make hard choices – desperate, wounded, and friendless – Sánchez takes refuge in the lawless mountains of Oaxaca. And discovers his fate.

“Wilson’s Mezcalero is a real-pager turner…While the milieu of Wilson’s novel is reminiscent of the hard-boiled tradition, his creation of P.I. Ernesto Sánchez is original, and helps Wilson push the boundaries with respect to genre. Sánchez is a hard-hitting private eye, but Wilson also depicts him as struggling with many of the issues that transgender individuals typically face; in this manner, Wilson creates both a riveting mystery and timely story about navigating life as a gender nonconforming individual.”

“Mezcalero is a remarkable read, with sustained suspense, surprise explosions of poetry and violence, and some new answers to old questions...Wilson understands something about violence and gender that I have never encountered before: that women’s violence is perhaps the most feared. Sanchez’s womanly violence in his manly body is a mystery revealed, a truth told that we suspected all along. This is a profoundly feminist book. The women in the book are the power brokers, the activators of action; even the most oppressed empleada is a container of her own complete power. Mezcalero is deftly plotted, and deploys an acrobatic narrative that is, frankly, exhilarating. Sanchez has a lot to teach us. Wilson, too.”

Janette Platana, author of A Token of My Affliction (2015 Frank O’Connor International Short Story Prize; 2016 English Language Trilium Book Award finalist).

“T.E. Wilson’s Mezcalerois, as a novel, a tacit consequence of the author’s real-world work as a reporter/journalist in Mexico. His work is rich in essence, and rich in detail, of how widespread organized crime and corruption permeate Mexican society. Highly recommended. This is great, well-grounded fiction.”

Dr. Edgardo Buscaglia, Senior Research Scholar in Law and Economics, Columbia University, and President of the Citizens’ Action Institute (Instituto de Acción Ciudadana).

“T.E. Wilson has crafted a terrific, terrifying and yet sensationally witty portrait of modern Mexico. Detective Sánchez is irresistible. You won’t soon forget his journey through that unpredictable jungle that is Mexico today.”